IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-08.txt

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 23 June 2020 06:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2A93A17BB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=V4Ipibeq; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=awO+gub4
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CCghGZzRtksi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26A943A17B9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2020 23:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jnchZ-0008OJ-3t for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:46:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:46:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jnchZ-0008OJ-3t@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1jnchW-0008NT-BF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:46:34 +0000
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1jnchU-0001JF-CA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 06:46:34 +0000
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E235C039E; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 02:46:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 23 Jun 2020 02:46:18 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=v xz6C+qtxbbZgaMaPOAP8qzbDeW4M7UfwnH0AVa5h/w=; b=V4IpibeqAWa7uU8XT 3zveJw6C26w/3dxGoCfA6hQWD5VtYIevd0NEDc6NJx5viSZdmGgr6RDG01ClziNn Qvw761UVslX7916DxlNMSm4dZSIDQzLxoYOwNYzP6siGxUAS4ofdydB3Ft+8+HeM NUU4gjww5mRFRuzIjJEwGHwAEsvIkqPVNQ3Ev24NKtby+uwFjcVfj6ciW7KvbmCv xEetc8W7eOxee3orcpLVfakNQEmF7HVmhWBfO9A/bcX2Tvn9eQyF5gyLXubKpOAW CbQO+8HN2CPxQ3qVt9UwWbl1I/4ZFj+LiQLrEgVm+n/9qZjuOQdDfM2DB/JFb7k5 u3hlA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=vxz6C+qtxbbZgaMaPOAP8qzbDeW4M7UfwnH0AVa5h /w=; b=awO+gub4Zs8wWl0FwJo2jfFte4lfF4iD0Jj7nUmh/YWaoGmMoRYM5fuzN VClB4jNdjfgzHhQqPUhzYFOnWBoaj2eq8EqfD+Y67FC6VkgbUgqDmY/PP14C9iLC NwTtmPAGB+65GQSfAPr6/OiaHBbh62RiNiCRDEouvKBrKa/8/VbC1ljChNDapfj3 6zpzBtm78akwoCSr8xky4Pg/88Xt2/QvhtdTNQom3rmvroGGk7LRhYAz49FUlxmT 2bFaRLDbqJnf4DXtoOBiptwlTXoi+6Nxqybx8F03KA4n3m1xHL6/LTYQk/v/vI+Y 4GKgmCUm6/4jyhSzrKLySAHzDhX3Q==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:OaXxXl5DkukGIoO9wGG46kPw3RdJexc6FwYyCryFJOspUc7HxVT1NA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudekfedguddufecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesth hqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhkucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothes mhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefvdfgleejveffleeuueeutefftd efgeekueefkeetudehueehvdefieejjeevheenucffohhmrghinheptggrtghhvgdqthgv shhtshdrfhihihdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvdehud enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhho thesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:OaXxXi4_a8LwamF4KVIgIcAAAgbqiPDQzMTEqKLAMXJgcGlAcBpg4A> <xmx:OaXxXseSNTzqVSDRcSh-r-cuG3tBMo8DcptbfxUTZEslfy4MRMGRLQ> <xmx:OaXxXuK0Beu7lmKjEEFBWIXUQS28D7MWWMQwEagWkHR0x8mU1pacOw> <xmx:OqXxXni6FXUUg0VB2XMBFH3Pu7MMtjfpUnlir_jx8EM3e6nr-_bc0g>
Received: from macbook-air.mnot.net (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 93D343067460; Tue, 23 Jun 2020 02:46:16 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <dc5e4d3d-c8e3-2f54-e9aa-59751bbf4f98@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 16:46:13 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FB9F287D-D6EE-4A89-A997-5A505F911B31@mnot.net>
References: <159048066829.15360.13534615257560671669@ietfa.amsl.com> <2cd0d6c6-2ac9-5218-cf5c-068444b358aa@fastmail.com> <dc5e4d3d-c8e3-2f54-e9aa-59751bbf4f98@treenet.co.nz>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.29; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jnchU-0001JF-CA 48294b4c3ad5a344c730a774b14abd8e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-httpbis-cache-08.txt
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/FB9F287D-D6EE-4A89-A997-5A505F911B31@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37812
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

> On 14 Jun 2020, at 11:27 am, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> In practice implementations (particularly older RFC2616 based ones) may
> treat "no-cache" as if it were "no-store" and "must-revalidate" as if it
> were unqualified "no-cache".

That's not what I'm seeing in the tests:
  https://cache-tests.fyi/?id=cc-resp-no-cache-revalidate&id=cc-resp-no-cache-revalidate-fresh&id=cc-resp-must-revalidate-fresh#

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email